Obviously if mafia picked LSU to roleblock, they would know that he wasn't mafia. But they wouldn't have known he was a vig, able to kill one a mafia. So they may have just blindly picked LSU and said let's roleblock him and then kill him to give us the best chance of killing him.

Obviously if mafia picked LSU to roleblock, they would know that he wasn't mafia. But they wouldn't have known he was a vig, able to kill one a mafia. So they may have just blindly picked LSU and said let's roleblock him and then kill him to give us the best chance of killing him.

Roleblocking someone doesn't give you good chances your kill will come through. Bulletproof townies stay bulletproof afaik, and docs rarely doc themselves. I think they knew Lsu was a potential threat to them during the night for some reason. The fact that the roleblock came "from the dark" makes me think it's a scum ability (night-time seems demon's territory and it's dark at night), so I doubt there'll be shame on anyone. The mafia probably had some clue to Lsu's powers. I'll reread his posts tomorrow to see if I can find it, got some sleep to catch up now.

chap wrote:Trying to think whether or not I want to share information that I have. It may be better to wait.

Tell me, what does everyone consider good odds for us to kill people? If we have two people and 1 is for sure town and one is anti-town, would agreeing to kill both be agreeable? I think it should be. What about if it's 3 people and 1 is anti-town and 2 are town? What percentages would you think are worth it?

1 on 1 trades are fine by me, as long as we don't have to lynch twice for it. Now that the vig is gone, I'm not so sure. If you have info you want to share, please share it, though. By saying this much you've practically already consented to do so. I'm interested in your role, since you appear to be able to investigate a group of people.

chapcrap wrote:Trying to think whether or not I want to share information that I have. It may be better to wait.

Tell me, what does everyone consider good odds for us to kill people? If we have two people and 1 is for sure town and one is anti-town, would agreeing to kill both be agreeable? I think it should be. What about if it's 3 people and 1 is anti-town and 2 are town? What percentages would you think are worth it?

If we know one is town and the other mafia, why would we kill both? Why not just kill the mafia? Or are you saying that in order to kill a mafia we would have to lose a townie or two? I'd trade one town for one mafia. Mafia is much smaller than town so the trade would be a good one. Not sure that I would trade two town for one mafia...

i think a 1-1 trade town for anti-town is a good one. but be careful. sometimes a 2-1 trade is good too. it all depends on who we get. if we get a 3rd party its not worth it. a godfather would be worth 2-1. it just depends. so decide based on what sort of information you have. if someone is mafia, and you will be killed because mafia will know your role, its probably worth it because its guaranteed scum. just use your better judgement.

That is slightly disappointing that no one was able to replace Squirrel before Night 2. This means that Squirrel/LSU was unable to use their night action during Night 2. He could've found out some good information for us.

chapcrap wrote:Trying to think whether or not I want to share information that I have. It may be better to wait.

Tell me, what does everyone consider good odds for us to kill people? If we have two people and 1 is for sure town and one is anti-town, would agreeing to kill both be agreeable? I think it should be. What about if it's 3 people and 1 is anti-town and 2 are town? What percentages would you think are worth it?

I am guessing from this that Chap was given a group of names/people, either two or three. And he was told within the group of two people that one is town and one is mafia. He was probably told within the group of three people that one was mafia and two were town. The thing is- he doesn't know exactly which is which or who is who. He was just given a group of names.This is interesting- and reminds me of the Stool Pigeon Variant. I doubt that Edoc made this game according to that variant, but interesting similarity, nonetheless.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Fluff my muffins! I can't believe that.

-Sully

What does this even mean? You are not into this game Victor, and I've had my suspicions on your since Day 1.

Vote Victor

Bruceswar: I have big news coming out soonishViolet: oh, what big news?Bruceswar: I am leaving KORT to go to RA

I think that if LSU answers this question, it would be a severe breach of gameply rules. LSU v1.0 died last night and we can't ask a dead guy any questions. And, as I recall, Squirrel did not claim Vig.

I am sure LSU won't answer it, but at the very least I think he SHOULDN'T answer this question.

In other related news, it's time for me to really look into cases. With Sully's latest post, just so everyone knows, I am going to research to see if there is a case against him. His meaningless posts have not really contributed to the game. But I at least want to see if there is some connection to him and scum or town.

I think that if LSU answers this question, it would be a severe breach of gameply rules. LSU v1.0 died last night and we can't ask a dead guy any questions. And, as I recall, Squirrel did not claim Vig.

Oh, right. That might be why I dislike dead players replacing in games. Despite that, I assume edocsil is a responsible mod and therefore the answer to my question can't have a serious impact on the game.

I think that if LSU answers this question, it would be a severe breach of gameply rules. LSU v1.0 died last night and we can't ask a dead guy any questions. And, as I recall, Squirrel did not claim Vig.

I am sure LSU won't answer it, but at the very least I think he SHOULDN'T answer this question.

That would be poor sportsmanship at best. I need a few replaces bad, bad enough to use the dead for them. However, LSU was chosen with the idea in mind that if he said or remembered something from his past role it wouldn't be modkill worthy or break the game in any way.

So the post below got me thinking about seeing if there is a case against Victor that would hold water. While I know that this isn't the best way to build a case, town has yet to receive a scum lynch, and his posts just keep rubbing me the wrong way.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Fluff my muffins! I can't believe that.

-Sully

We all have witnessed Sully making quick one-line posts that have very little relevance to the game. If you need to jog your memory, check Day 1 here and here or Day 3 here. These are just like the above post.

But in my research, here's what I found interesting.

Sully votes for Greg D1, check the vote and his modest buddying with Jak, who originally made the vote. You all know how I feel about Jak. Notice that (in his own way) he is saying that this case is worth pursuing. Straws are bendy - Let's see where this case leads.

Now he is pushed into talking about some comments he made and Violet and him have some real discussion about it and he posts this little gem:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm not really sure what you want? It's not like I can do much Day 1 aside from building pointless cases or taking sides on pointless cases. And I'm sure I'm not the only one posting what one might call "fluff". It's easy to be in the midst of things and seem like you're doing more than you are. I mean, many of you are trying way too hard to find something in that post of mine. I feel like that's evidence enough that we've yet again accomplished very little Day 1.

My whole thing is I'm simply stopping in to say, "hello," and let you all know I'm keeping track of the conversation. There's not much else to do without a little night action-action.

-Sully

What happened to the bendy straws that need pursuing? I thought that we should pressure people a little? Those are your words. Or are you trying to distance yourself from the scum buddying? I think that is the case because if you truly believed that there wasn't a case on anyone, you would have unvoted Greg. But, for some reason, your vote stayed. That's suspicious. ESPECIALLY since your vote never changed D1 even after the push to even out votes and people going for a no lynch.

Now it gets even better:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I mean Day 2 there is more out there to verify/disprove claims. And my philosophy for voting inactives was for Day 1 only and only on the basis that I'd rather play against good players than with silent ones. You did vote for Iliad, did you not?

-Sully

So, with all the crazy D1, there is a promise of some real input on D2. Great. Please note this post was made Sept 16

The next post is during D2, as promised, but here it is, the insightful post by Sully that he promises at the end of D1

Victor Sullivan wrote:Oh snappers! I must apologize, I forgot about this; I was busy over the end of last week and the weekend. Not that it particularly matters, since my vote was stolen anyway

I'll try to catch up. Seems to me I was taking heat yesterday, so I'll try to be quick-like! Thursdays I'm booked, but I'll see if I can't post something meaningful by Friday.

-Sully

This post was made Sept 27, but at least he was sorry. But we go through and realize that his vote is being stolen (shown by a vote count). He never stops to even check in to the thread after that and ask what is happening or talk about it. And he never lives up to his promise of D2 insight after night actions. This seems like an obvious attempt at scummarining. But it continues to yesterday when he hasn't made a post since october 1, and makes this comment 16 days after his last post (this time, no apologies!):

Victor Sullivan wrote:Fluff my muffins! I can't believe that.

-Sully

So I ask the town... At the very least he is not bringing anything to the table. I personally think that he is acting super scummy and not living up to the things he has said and is full of contradictions. In my eyes, his day 1 behavior was indicative of scum behavior, and the D2 and D3 behavior is just reinforcing it.

So I have enough evidence to make me feel comfortable VOTE VICTOR SULLIVAN

confirm, will post more tomorrow. going to bed now. btw i don't talk about what i have or have not done in past lives in the same game out of principle even though edoc said it wouldn't break the game.

LSU Fighting Tigers The 2003 & 2007 National Football Champions Irony at its finestYomiel wrote:As I said, I DID. He responded very badly both times. He won't even consider that he made a mistake, and this behavior is hurting the game.

Ok, I'll share my info because no one else is willing and I feel like it will help. What I know is that on the last lynch, 4 were anti-town. That is why edoc had to post the vote count, because I needed him to for the information. Here is the VC:

edocsil wrote:For various reasons a final VC from yesterday was requested.

This is great information, becuase now at least we can narrow our search. Could you clarify something though. You say on the last lynch, 4 were anti-town. I assume that you mean four of the people who voted for the victim. I initially interpreted this to say that of the four people targeted for a lynch. Subsequently, I wondered why there was even a question because there were only four targets. Can you confirm that its four of the voters and not 4 of the targets.

Next, and I hate to bring it back to here, but Jak was one of the people who voted for Greg. He's looking more and more guilty in my book. But, I said I would stick to the case I built on Sully for now, so I will live up to my end of that.

Lastly, do you have any info about N1? Or did we have to reach a lynch to determine the number of players who were antitown? I assume it's that we have to reach a lynch, but its worth asking.

It is the votes on the person getting lynched that we're talking about.

blakebowling wrote:

jak111 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, the part about I am wondering about is the ??? vote. Either way, I think it's valuable to get that information on a group of players. So, I'll be sharing.

I am curious, are you skimming, or are you forgetful? I had a stolen vote and it shows up as "???"... the fact that I need to explain this after I've been a known vote stealer is pretty bad.

Now, I want to hear about your anti town thing. Is it gut feeling or a power? If it's a power I can narrow down the list to:

Saf, jonty, soundman, aage, JG, Nag, DRoZ, Strike, Vodean

I know that's not a great decrease with only 3 voters gone, but if you say 4 of these are anti town we have targets to investigate and I have people to target for a missing vote

Now, if you can confirm it as a power, then we could try to clear 2-3 of the above with night actions last night and we will soon have a small amount of people left to get at.

I do believe he was asking who the ??? vote shows up as. (i.e. If it would count as your alignment or the person whom it was stolen from's alignment, or neither)

This. When I initially typed my last post I said that 8 votes were town, but that was technically incorrect information. I was told that 4 were anti-town. So, I don't know where that ??? falls in. Is it jak? Is it VS? If it is jak, what does that mean for the number? I don't know those answers. All I know is 4 of the players on the lynch were anti-town. So, I think that means that 4 of 11 (if jak counts twice) or 4 of 12 are anti-town.

thats good info anyways. we can narrow the list down a fair bit. some of them (us) may be third party though, and i believe that for these purposes 3rd party are anti-town, meaning that we have no idea about scum